Tension between Digital Distance and Physical Presence in Hybrid Teaching: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a French Business School

Diego Zunino; Francesco Castellaneta; Ludovic Dibiaggio

doi:10.37725/mgmt.2023.8661

Diego Zunino Knowledge, Technology and Organization Research Center, Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion (GREDEG), SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France; and Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School Frederiksberg, Denmark
Francesco Castellaneta Knowledge, Technology and Organization Research Center, Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion (GREDEG), SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France
Ludovic Dibiaggio Knowledge, Technology and Organization Research Center, Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion (GREDEG), SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2023.8661

Keywords: Digital distance, Physical presence, COVID-19, Hybrid teaching, Learning outcomes

Abstract

The advent of digitization has promised learning paradigms based on digital communication and virtual reality at the expense of physical presence. During the COVID-19 health emergency, the tension between digital distance and physical presence evolved from competing alternatives to a more nuanced coexistence. Several organizations resorted to hybrid arrangements; hybrid teaching is a notable example. In this paper, we draw from the theory of planned behavior to theorize the effect of physical presence on learning outcomes in the context of hybrid teaching. We differentiate between individual and team learning outcomes. We predict that physical presence induces competition and has a negative effect on individual learning outcomes. For team learning outcomes, we predict that physical presence induces cooperation and has a positive impact. We exploit two natural experiments in a French business school during the fall semester of 2020. The school’s administration allocated students to subgroups randomly for fairness reasons. This context offered a natural within-subjects experiment, where every student was randomly assigned to either in-person or online lectures. Students had up to 4.9% lower likelihood of correctly answering exam questions for lectures they followed in person rather than online. However, in group-work assignments, teams with one more student following in person tended to see a 3.6% increase in their team evaluation. Digital distance, therefore, constitutes a barrier to learning in a hybrid setting only when tasks are evaluated on a team basis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Diego Zunino, Knowledge, Technology and Organization Research Center, Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion (GREDEG), SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France; and Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School Frederiksberg, Denmark

Diego Zunino (diego.zunino@skema.edu) is an Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur (GREDEG), and a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Copenhagen Business School. He received his PhD from Copenhagen Business School. Diego is interested in social evaluations in general, and in the context of digital economy and entrepreneurial finance, in particular.

Francesco Castellaneta, Knowledge, Technology and Organization Research Center, Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion (GREDEG), SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France

Francesco Castellaneta (francesco.castellaneta@skema.edu) is a Full Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship and Director of the PhD in Management at SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur (GREDEG). He holds the UCA JEDI Chair for excellence in research and education. The overarching goal of his research is to understand organizational learning and knowledge appropriability in the context of buyouts, venture capital, and mobility to entrepreneurship.

Ludovic Dibiaggio, Knowledge, Technology and Organization Research Center, Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion (GREDEG), SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France

Ludovic Dibiaggio (ludovic.dibiaggio@skema.edu) is a Full Professor of Economics and management of innovation at SKEMA Business School, Université Côte d’Azur (GREDEG). Ludovic has studied the determinants of the organization of technological knowledge bases and its influence on the performance of firms, industries, and local ecosystems. He has developed projects in the semiconductor, biotechnology, and fuel cell industries. Currently, Ludovic is engaged in researching the genesis of ecosystems and in the geography of innovation in artificial intelligence.

References

Agrawal, A., Gans, J. S., & Goldfarb, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: The ambiguous labor market impact of automating prediction. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 31–50. doi: 10.1257/jep.33.2.31

Ahmadi, A., & Vogel, B. (2022). Knowing but not enacting leadership: Navigating the leadership knowing-doing gap in leveraging leadership development. Academy of Management Learning & Education. doi: 10.5465/amle.2020.0534

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control. From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1310–1333. doi: 10.5465/257035

Assinder, W. (1991). Peer teaching, peer learning: One model. ELT Journal, 45(3), 218–229. doi: 10.1093/elt/45.3.218

Baba, V. V, & HakemZadeh, F. (2012). Toward a theory of evidence based decision making. Management Decision, 50(5), 832–867. doi: 10.1108/00251741211227546

Baden, D. (2014). Look on the bright side: A comparison of positive and negative role models in business ethics education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 154–170. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0251

Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based MBA program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1369–1397. doi: 10.5465/257037

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2005). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons.

Buhl-Wiggers, J., Kjærgaard, A., & Munk, K. (2022). A scoping review of experimental evidence on face-to-face components of blended learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 48(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2123911

Carugati, A., Mola, L., Plé, L., Lauwers, M. et al. (2020). Exploitation and exploration of IT in times of pandemic: From dealing with emergency to institutionalising crisis practices. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(6), 762–777. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1832868

Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., & Brickell, T. (2008). Using the construct of perceived autonomy support to understand social influence within the theory of planned behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9(1), 27–44. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.12.003

Christensen, P. H., & Foss, N. J. (2021). Present-but-online: How mobile devices may harm purposeful co-presence in organizations (and what can be done about it). European Management Journal, 39(1), 84–94. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.07.006

Cohen, J. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). The common neural basis of exerting self-control in multiple domains. In R. Hassin, K. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 141–161). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195391381.003.0008

Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.4.381

Cramton, C. D., Orvis, K. L., & Wilson, J. M. (2007). Situation invisibility and attribution in distributed collaborations. Journal of Management, 33(4), 525–546. doi: 10.1177/0149206307302549

Denham, J. P. (2014). Teacher matters: Teacher normative influence and student persistence in college [Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University]. doi: 10.31390/gradschool_dissertations.818

Dodd, T., Graves, C., & Hentzen, J. (2022). Impact and university business training courses delivered to the marginalized: A systematic review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3), 449–469. doi: 10.5465/amle.2021.0244

Fredricks, J. A., Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2019). Interventions for student engagement: Overview and state of the field. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students (pp. 1–11). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00001-2

Garaus, C., Furtmüller, G., & Güttel, W. H. (2016). The hidden power of small rewards: The effects of insufficient external rewards on autonomous motivation to learn. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(1), 45–59. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0284

Gibson, C. (2020). From ‘social distancing’ to ‘care in connecting’: An emerging organizational research agenda for turbulent times. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(2), 165–169. doi: 10.5465/amd.2020.0062

Glaeser, E. L. (1999). Learning in cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 46(2), 254–277. doi: 10.1006/juec.1998.2121

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5

Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265–287. doi: 10.2307/30036531

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166.

Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0122

Holliday, W., & Li, Q. (2004). Understanding the millennials: Updating our knowledge about students. Reference Services Review, 32(4), 356–366. doi: 10.1108/00907320410569707

Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 23(3), 165–178. doi: 10.1080/014904001316896855

Isaacson, R., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39–55.

Jemine, G., Pichault, F., & Dubois, C. (2022). New ways of working in academia: Maneuvering in and with ambiguity in workspace design processes. M@n@gement, 25(4), 16–30. doi: 10.37725/mgmt.v25.4447

Jiang, Y., Yang, L., Guo, W., & Zhang, W. (2022). Linking social networks to student learning and performance in project teams: The promise of collaborative norms. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 561–579. doi: 10.5465/amle.2020.0103

Johnson, M. L., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Use of task-value instructional inductions for facilitating engagement and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.003

Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808. doi: 10.5555/2017356.2017364

Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137–162). The MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/2464.001.0001

Lee, S., & Klein, H. J. (2002). Relationships between conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, and learning over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1175–1182. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1175

Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457–463. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.001

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5

Loaiza, V. M., & Lavilla, E. T. (2021). Elaborative strategies contribute to the long-term benefits of time in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 117, 104205. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104205

Loh, R. C.-Y., & Ang, C.-S. (2020). Unravelling cooperative learning in higher education: A review of research. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 5(2), 22–39. doi: 10.46303/ressat.05.02.2

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jiménez-Rodríguez, M., Wildman, J. et al. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002

Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Barlow, A. T., & Smith-Walters, C. (2020). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 253–277. doi: 10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1

Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. P. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 57–76. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.57

Porcher, S., & Renault, T. (2021). Social distancing beliefs and human mobility: Evidence from Twitter. Plos One, 16(3), e0246949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246949

Purvanova, R. K. (2014). Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 2–29. doi: 10.1037/mgr0000009

Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., Hockerts, K., & Tan, C.-W. (2020). Modeling collaborative intentions and behavior in digital environments: The case of a massive open online course (MOOC). Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(4), 469–502. doi: 10.5465/amle.2018.0056

Redpath, L. (2012). Confronting the bias against on-line learning in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 125–140. doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0044

Rockmann, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. (2015). Contagious offsite work and the lonely office: The unintended consequences of distributed work. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2), 150–164. doi: 10.5465/amd.2014.0016

Rogoff, B., Baker-Sennett, J., Lacasa, P., & Goldsmith, D. (1995). Development through participation in sociocultural activity. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1995(67), 45–65. doi: 10.1002/cd.23219956707

Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 62–81. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0191

Schwarz, C. (2018). Ldagibbs: A command for topic modeling in Stata using latent Dirichlet allocation. The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata, 18(1), 101–117. doi: 10.1177/1536867X1801800107

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157–187. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6

Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370. doi: 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027

Suarez, F. F., Utterback, J., von Gruben, P., & Kang, H. Y. (2018). The hybrid trap: Why most efforts to bridge old and new technology miss the mark. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(3), 52–57.

Sull, D. N., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Simple rules: How to thrive in a complex world. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27–43. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171105

Szulanski, G., Ringov, D., & Jensen, R. J. (2016). Overcoming stickiness: How the timing of knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty. Organization Science, 27(2), 304–322. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1049

Trefalt, Š. (2013). Between you and me: Setting work-nonwork boundaries in the context of workplace relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1802–1829. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0298

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. doi: 10.1037/a0020319

Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1282–1309. doi: 10.5465/257034

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.

Wilson, G., & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 33–48. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1366